Latest news for herbal v viagra study

Average Rating: 4.5 out of 5 based on 220 user reviews.

I'll bet you $100 I get disqualified for this post!
Did Drew Levin need to get disqualified for what he did? Maybe. Probably. Wizards of the Coast takes a very hard line when it comes to any form of gambling in relation to its games. Betting on the outcome of a match isn't the only example of this; DQs for randomly determining the results of a match are another, as that situation could logically lead to a player being awarded a substantial amount of money from the result of random chance. The structure of tournament magic as we know it, the Pro Tour, the store series (SCG, CFB, TCGP), all of it is based upon the premise that this is a game of skill, not a game of luck. If it were to be redefined under law to in fact be a game of luck herbal v viagra study, all sorts of benefits go away. Think about restrictions on where events could be held, no one under the age of 18 allowed to play, tax documents that make your head ache, and worse. Wizards can't afford that, and can't logically risk pushing the boundaries of what bureaucracy considers gambling.
In short, gambling on match results must remains a disqualifiable offense, to prevent the collapse of everything we know about tournament Magic.
Did Drew bet on his own matches? His personal account () says that he did not, that it was a joke. I personally don't see the humor involved, but I've been known to laugh at dead baby jokes, so that's not a valuable metric. Other people have implied that he seemed absolutely serious. [herbal v viagra study] Still not proof, as some of the best jokes need to be told with a straight face.
Whether it was a joke or not, the reaction from Drew's opponent must be to call a judge, immediately. Noticing an infraction and failing to call a judge is punishable by a disqualification, as it should be. Wescoe was acting in his own-self interest and did so by following the rules of the event. Whether he did so offhandedly, regretfully, or vengefully, it does not matter; he remains above reproach.
Do we know if Wescoe was gloating inside as he dragged down the foe who had just vanquished him? No, we don't. We can't. In the same way, we can't really know whether a bet existed or not, as no one can be reasonably expected to come forward as the other involved party.
Once a judge is called, Drew gets investigated. If that sounds ominous, it should. Anyone who has taken the time to become a sanctioned judge has a fair amount of experience dealing with players, even players who are trying to hide the truth. A level 3 judge investigating a player who's exhausted from 16 rounds of play? Drew must have felt like a frog pinned to the dissecting table. So did Drew admit to betting?
No. If he did, there's no way he would change his story in a printed article, as lying to a judge is a Very Bad Thing. Why, then, the DQ?
Consider this situation: A player casts a [card]Lightning Bolt[/card] "targeting" a [card]Jace, the Mind Sculptor[/card] controlled by a player with [card]Leyline of Sanctity[/card] in play. When the judge comes over, the player says herbal v viagra study "OK, I know I couldn't play the Lightning Bolt because of the [card]Meddling Mage[/card], but I hoped he wouldn't notice. " Hold on, what Meddling Mage? Oh, that one in the graveyard? "So why did you stop me?"
Has this player cheated? Maybe. The answer you get depends on who you ask. If you happened to be the judge in this case, would you disqualify the player? Few people would argue with you if you chose to do so. The fact is, even in the presence or evidence against it, and even if the head judge believed that Drew had not made a bet, the only action she can take in this situation is to hand out the DQ. An unfortunate incident for Drew, but also a necessary evil.
The situation that concerns me more from Columbus is the accusation towards Saito of slow play. Billy Moreno covered some of it .
Am I also accusing Saito of stalling? Absolutely not. I wasn't there, and as a judge I know that eyewitness accounts are suspect at the best of times. But stalling is a serious offense; it's punishable by disqualification. What's the difference between stalling and slow play? Intent. If a player is playing slowly in order to run out the clock, it's stalling. If a player is trying to make the right play, but taking too long to do so? Slow play.
Judges are often hesitant with penalties for slow play or stalling, because it can come dangerously close to ruling based upon intangible qualities, such as the skill of a player or intention, rather than the concrete rules. And slow play often goes unpunished. A judge I respect once said to me "If you start to question whether Slow Play is occurring, it has already occurred. " Rules of thumb are suspect, but I like this one.
This is not the first time that Saito has been accused of slow play. GP Oakland saw some accusations of the same sort leveled at him, with no penalty. And so I feel compelled to comment on an insidious situation - Saito should have received a penalty for the game mentioned by Moreno. I understand that time can drag on for spectators, and comments such as "fiddled for 20 seconds" are suspect. But two turn cycles, with a total of two cards played and five unique activations, should never take six minutes. I wasn't there, and I haven't interviewed the players, so I can't call it stalling, but I can say that a penality should have been issued. Herbal v viagra study
so, judges, this is me taking a stance - be proactive about slow play! if you think it might be happening, say something. Even something as simple as "You need to play faster. Next time, I'll have to give you a warning for slow play. " Your players will thank you for it.